ArticleHealth science reports2026
Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy Between Digital and Conventional Definitive Impressions of Edentulous Arches: A Clinical Study.
Article in Health science reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy Between Digital and Conventional Definitive Impressions of Edentulous Arches: A Clinical Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Digital era in oral rehabilitation: a scoping review of trends and implications for clinical practice.Brazilian oral research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: This clinical study evaluated the three-dimensional discrepancies between digital and conventional definitive impressions of edentulous arches for complete denture fabrication. Methods: Ten edentulous patients ( Results: No statistically significant differences were found between CI3D and CI in their deviations from the IOS reference. The overall mean difference between groups was -0.11 ± 1.62 mm, and the RMS difference was -0.10 ± 0.68 mm ( Conclusion: Within the limitations of this clinical study, which included edentulous ridges with minimal to moderate bone loss (Cawood and Howell Class III), 3D-printed and acrylic tray-based conventional definitive impressions demonstrated comparable dimensional accuracy to intraoral scanning, showing no statistically significant or clinically relevant differences between techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.